Keosawa's Powerlifting Log

Really liked the strongman vid!! Nice work Keo!
 
Sorry, I've been lazy as anything in logging my progress recently, so I didn't log my sessions while at RI beyond my trip to Poundstone's. I'll just start back up when I return to Iowa City tomorrow.

I didn't entirely blow it with my diet, but I certainly wasn't on-point over these past few days. I doubt I'll gain a significant amount of weight, and the good news is that my weight's really low right now anyway. A little bit of cheating is basically impossible for me, because once I eat a few carbs, I get wicked carb cravings that result in periodic snacking. Once I'm back in Iowa City, I'll have total control over my diet again; at this point, I'm not looking to lose any more weight.

I'll take this time to address my plans for the next five weeks:

In roughly two weeks, I'll test my one-rep maxes on all three lifts. I would like to hit a 445 squat, 560 deadlift, and 280 paused bench press on all three lifts. The squat and especially the bench press are imperative; I would be OK with missing the deadlift. If I hit all three, I'll be very happy.

After that week, I'm going to run a reverse cycle for the first time. That means that I'll be starting with my 75/85/95% percentages, then work up to 85%, then work up to 75%, then take a week of rest before my meet. My squat, deadlift, and bench press variants will all be relatively light partials on the second week, and reverse-bands on the third. This will be different from previous meets, in which I've worked up in my final microcycle to a 95% attempt on the final week, then taken a full week off, then competed.

This time, I'm going to try a more traditional approach to peaking for a meet to see how my body responds. Who knows; maybe I'll see a jump in strength from it. It's worth a try.
 
You have a very methodical way of training for your meet. I wish I could intelligently plan in a similar way. I kind of get all sporadic and stray from things that have worked and try something new. I hope your plan is a successful one!
 
My planning isn't perfect, WC; I trust my instincts a lot for my training, and I know others who structure their training far more than I do. I'm still learning how to be disciplined, as it's very easy for me to abandon script and do something a little crazy. I think that sometimes I get away with it because my work capacity and ability to recover from heavy attempts is pretty good.
 
One of the guys I train with said work capacity and recovery speeds are better for lightweight lifters compared to 220+, I kind of feel it's true and also kind of feel that it might just be that lighter lifters are generally more conditioned.
 
Keo, could you critique my squat video when you get a chance. I posted the video in the main forum. My squat has been feeling a little off lately.
 
cXs808 said:
One of the guys I train with said work capacity and recovery speeds are better for lightweight lifters compared to 220+, I kind of feel it's true and also kind of feel that it might just be that lighter lifters are generally more conditioned.
Click to expand...

This is supported by most Russian texts. Super Heavyweights are expected to operate at 100+% far less often(comparatively) than the little guys.
 
Responded, drew.

And I wonder if this has less to do with little guys having better work capacity and more to do with human beings in general having an asymptotic relationship to near-maximal training. In other words, superheavies probably need more recovery time because of the stress being placed upon them, not because they're less conditioned.

Or, maybe we do have a better work capacity. :)
 
Deadlifts (4" deficit; standing on two 45-lb. bumper plates)
135x3
135x3
225x3
315x3
405x3
425x3
445x5

Rack Pulls, 4" below knee
135x3
225x3
315x3
405x3
495x3
495x3 (callus torn; stopped these prematurely, used straps for Dimels)

Dimel Deadlifts
225x20
225x20
225x20

Lat Pulldowns, three sets

I was quite pleased with my rep work for deficits. I haven't pulled for reps in a while, so 445x5 at that deficit was great.
 
When you say "Deadlifts" should we just assume conventional?
 
cXs808 said:
When you say "Deadlifts" should we just assume conventional?
Click to expand...

Oh, right. Yes, "deadlifts" means "conventional deadlifts." Sorry--I never realized that I now need to be clearer about that.
 
Keosawa said:
Responded, drew.

And I wonder if this has less to do with little guys having better work capacity and more to do with human beings in general having an asymptotic relationship to near-maximal training. In other words, superheavies probably need more recovery time because of the stress being placed upon them, not because they're less conditioned.

Or, maybe we do have a better work capacity. :)
Click to expand...

Well, to answer that, you could look at mediocre superheavies and see if they can train more often due to less weight being lifted.

It makes sense to me that a lighter lifter would have a higher work capacity, just from the cardiovascular system being under less stress the rest of the time. Plus smaller muscles recover faster, and don't get as many aches and knots.
 
Tosa said:
Well, to answer that, you could look at mediocre superheavies and see if they can train more often due to less weight being lifted.

It makes sense to me that a lighter lifter would have a higher work capacity, just from the cardiovascular system being under less stress the rest of the time. Plus smaller muscles recover faster, and don't get as many aches and knots.
Click to expand...

I guess my assumption here comes from anecdotal evidence: in general, the trajectory of good, heavier-weight multi-ply lifters seems to be one of decreased near-maximal volume over time, while the trajectory of good, lighter-weight lifters (whether raw or equipped) seems to be one of sustained near-maximal volume with increased GPP over time.

But as far as general work capacity goes, I would agree. Lighter-weight lifters, in general, take better care of themselves. That's certainly far from an absolute rule, but it is a general tendency.
 
Bench Press
Barx5 (close)
Barx5 (wide)
95x5 (close)
95x5 (wide)
135x3 (close)
135x3 (wide)
185x1 (close)
185x1 (wide)
210x5 (close)
230x5 (wide)
225x5 (close)
245x5 (wide)
240x5 (close)
260x5 (wide)

One-board press w/ blue reverse bands
225x3
315x2
405x2
425x2
445x2
455x2

Overhead Tricep Extensions w/ 26-lb. kettlebell, four or five sets

Shoulder mobility/stretching w/ compression band, plus external rotation exercise w/ kettlebell

I was teaching Babyeater (I'm going to use her nickname, since I won't use her real name and I'm sick of writing, "this girl I'm dating") how to box squat today, so I took it easy with the assistance work. My bench press was lousy on this day, but I got through all of my work sets. My bench press is scaring the hell out of me right now, but I'm just trying to have faith that it will be good enough come April.
 
Babyeater !? Does she feast upon baby's and devour their souls for strength ?
 
Babyeater? Haha

I'm suddenly questioning your decision making Keo :D
 
The baby-eating is indeed a form of post-workout (I believe) supplementation, or so the story goes. The nickname was earned after demonstrating I-eat-babies level intensity at the gym. Said intensity is partially to ward off undergrad bros from making conversation. In case you're wondering, no, it doesn't really seem to work. They're relentless, those kids.

She is also stronger--and a better lifter--than 99% of the guys at our gym. This is one of the many advantages to dating the Babyeater; she's not a skinny-fat girl doing Pilates for "toned" muscles, which is a good thing. And dating someone who understands training intensity is a welcome change of pace; she doesn't just tolerate my training. In most things in life, I am meek and reserved (though that's not to say that I lack confidence), but in training, I have a strong mindset and unwavering self-belief. It is nice to be with someone who can understand that mindset.

And without going into much detail, her strength, beyond being impressive, has additional advantages. Mmmm...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,280,166
Messages
58,262,861
Members
175,986
Latest member
BloodandBeer

Share this page

Back
Top